Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • vpc

      Our Place Has Moved   09/30/2018

      Our Place has moved to a new location:      http://ourplaceonline.freeforums.net/forum  You will need to reregister at the new site as we are unable to transfer any content from here to there.   You will no longer be able to post here after 4th October, but the forum will remain visible until the end of October. If you are having problems registering at the new site, please admin.our.place@gmail.com                                                                                             
Sign in to follow this  
Curly

Victorian Family Violence Protection Act 2008

Recommended Posts

Curly

Our Place Facebook page

About the legislation There is an explanation of the legislation and also a link to the full document which is very long.

Personally I am very pleased to see this legislation particularly as it is the state where I live. I personally think it is world leading with it's expanded definitions of what constitutes a family and also including a very broad definition of what constitutes violence within a family. The act also takes in to account the impact of violence on children and other family members. Police have the power to remove the perpetrator from the home. Perpetrators can be removed from a lease allowing the victim to stay.

It does sound as though women and children have been considered and that they have rights.

I do hope that similar laws will gradually become the norm rather than the exception. I hope that the day comes when there are no more judges or court systems that deny the existence of abuse unless they see a woman dead or close to it. I hope the day comes when, although it is hard to prove, that the court system will recognise verbal and emotional abuse. I hope the day comes when it is recognised and acknowledged that such abuse has a hugely damaging impact not only on the direct victim but also on any children in that family. I hope that some day the court system will also accept more readily that there are some parents out there who should not have contact with their children simply because through contact they do harm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vpc

A thumbs up from me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeker

Broader definition of family violence

The Act also extends the definition of ‘family violence’ to behaviour that is physically or sexually abusive, emotionally or psychologically abusive, threatening or coercive, or in any other way controls or dominates the family member and causes that family member to fear for his or her safety or wellbeing or for the safety or wellbeing of another person.

Examples of behaviour that may be considered family violence for the purposes of the Act include:

causing a child to hear or witness, or otherwise be exposed to the effects of, family violence;

coercing a family member to relinquish control over assets and income;

removing or keeping a family member’s property without permission, or threatening to do so;

threatening to disclose a person’s sexual orientation to the person’s friends or family against the person’s wishes;

threatening to withhold a person’s medication;

preventing a person from making or keeping connections with the person’s family, friends or culture, including cultural or spiritual ceremonies or practices, or preventing the person from expressing the person’s cultural identity; or

threatening to commit suicide or self harm with the intention of tormenting or intimidating a family member.

This is so encouraging......... that it's actually legislated about control of assets and financial control.

I'm just trying to interpret and understand these broader definitions. ...

Slacker has said that I've caused the children to hear/witness and be exposed to the effects of family violence, in that I fought or argued with him in front of them or with them in earshot. It wasn't always like that, and why should only one person be to blame for it? Why should I only take repsonsibility for it? Didn't I try to remove the children from the house and the fighting be leaving? He wouldn't leave the house - and I couldn't claim sole occupancy as my name wasn't on our house........ so my only other option was to leave really and protect the kids the best I could at the time.

But would the second and third items cover what he was doing to me in relation to money?

He didn't put our family home in my name, and refused to do so when I asked repeatedly. This is coercing and making me relinquish control isn't it?, it's actually refusing right from the start.

He also wouldn't let me have access to our money when I was financially dependent upon him, except that I had to ask all the time for it. So he gave me money after I asked for it, but in dribs and drabs. does this fit in that description of prevention of use of assets or keeping property against my will?

Psychological and emotional abuse is such a broad thing ...........and it's so hard to show covert abuse, passive aggression and neglect. So hard to have proof of it. It's their word against yours unless you have witnesses to it. And often there are none as it's done in private. These would be very hard things to define in an act I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joyful
Broader definition of family violence

Examples of behaviour that may be considered family violence for the purposes of the Act include:

coercing a family member to relinquish control over assets and income;

removing or keeping a family member’s property without permission, or threatening to do so;

In addition to stretchmarks concerns I'm having problems with these two. Perhaps it would be better stated "coercing a spouse or significant other to relinquish control over assets and income;

and removing or keeping a spouse or signficant other's property without permission, or threatening to do so.

I say this because we have had arguments with our kids over who owns the cell phone. Them or us. Under this definition it could be easily argued that even though the parent pays for the cell phone (in fact all their belongings) they don't own it and therefore it cannot be taken away for any reason. When you're talking about punishment for bad behavior you take out an entire aresenal that a parent has to set consequences for children's bad behavior. You can't take the cell phone, video games, ipods, computers, etc., when they're misbehaving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×